It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona Sheriff's Pink-Underwear Policy May Be Unconstitutional: Court

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

LOS ANGELES — Firebrand Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio's requirement that jail inmates wear pink underwear may be unconstitutional when applied to prisoners who have not been convicted of a crime, a federal appeals court said on Wednesday.

Two members of a three-judge appeal panel raised the issue while ruling for the majority in a related lawsuit against Arpaio and Maricopa County. But they stopped short of striking down the pink-underwear practice, saying it had not been formally challenged by plaintiffs in the case.

Pink underwear for male jail inmates is famously part of the tough stance against crime taken by Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County who has come under fire by the U.S. Justice Department for a crackdown on illegal immigration that the government said involved racial profiling.

"Unexplained and undefended, the dress-out in pink appears to be punishment without legal justification," 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Noonan wrote for the majority.
www.msnbc.msn.com...


But indefinite imprisonment without without charges or access to legal counsel, rendition, torture, NDAA etc, etc. are all OK? Give me a break.

ETA:

I'm not focusing so much on the pink underwear. My problem is that I don't see any courts standing up and slapping down all the unconstitutional laws that have come about since 9/11, but they do have time for pink underwear. Priorities?

edit on 3/7/2012 by this_is_who_we_are because: Edit To Add




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


That's a punishment? Everywhere else it's used to spread breast cancer awareness. Why not say something like "the company we buy the pink underwear from gives a portion of the proceeds to breast cancer awareness" it would be a way to keep the "punishment" even if they say it's unconstitutional. It would even benefit people in the process

I guess I just don't see the problem here. If they had different colors depending on what charges they got or sexual orientation, that would be different. What if being forced to wear whites is a form of punishment in the opinion of some? Same issue, but pink is just so controversial I guess



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Innocent until proven guilty. What a concept.

The system certainly needs an overhaul, but I'm glad that on occasion the judicial system steps in and does its job.

Personally, I don't have a problem wearing pink undies, but maybe that's just me.

edit on 3/7/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Like I said...
Priorities?


edit on 3/7/2012 by this_is_who_we_are because: changed entire post, moved post to OP



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 



Let me say that again.


If anyone has any doubt the 9th Circuit is as phony as a three dollar bill, this should take care of that.

Most of the 9th Circuits decisions are overturned. The SCOTUS almost always sides against them.

Pink underwear is unconstitutional
Certainly they learned in Law School that convicted Felons forfeit their Rights. Naw, they make it up as they go along.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


It has nothing to do with a "tough stance" on crime. Everything that man does is about ego, power, and showmanship. What makes better press copy? Pink underwear and green bologna or hard core work duties? In many ways I see Arpaio as a poor man's J Edgar especially in regards to his showmanship and duplicity.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The purpose of the pink underwear is to stop theft of it after an inmate leaves the system. They were losing a lot of underwear (which does cost money.) Since switching to pink, there aren't too many brave souls willing to wear it after they get out so they leave it. That is the concept and the purpose. Jeesh. Doesn't anybody read anything anymore? This was put out on the MSM years ago. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


It has nothing to do with a "tough stance" on crime. Everything that man does is about ego, power, and showmanship. What makes better press copy? Pink underwear and green bologna or hard core work duties? In many ways I see Arpaio as a poor man's J Edgar especially in regards to his showmanship and duplicity.


Might have something to do with the fact that a Sheriff is up for reelection. To get those votes you gotta come up with new ideas to be tough on crime, wether it works or not, and preferably take on popular crimes, such as illegal immigration.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 





Pink underwear for male jail inmates is famously part of the tough stance against crime taken by Arpaio,


Tough stance on crime??

Does anyone else find this ironic? A tough stance against crime that amounts to pink underwear? This makes NO sense.

I recall reading about the pink policy several years ago, and i thought it was more a form of humiliation for those convicted.

But for the article to use the phrase above...if the prospect of incarceration for a crime does not deter a (potential) criminal, then the prospect of pink underwear will? Gimme a break. "Man, i'll ain't worried about goin' to jail, losing all my freedom, but if i gotta wear pink underwear....Sh......" C'mon.

That said, i really don't see how being forced to wear pink underwear is a constitutional issue for those not convicted if it is part of the "dress code." If in jail for longer than a day or so, they generally have to put on jump suits anyway (until bail or trial), so where exactly is the difference? And they usually are restricted to white or greys, so i still do not see how this is a constitutional issue.

To a few others posters, i agree, as if there are more blatant constitutional issues that should be addressed.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 



That's the point of the thread. I couldn't care less about pink underwear, but the courts seem to care more about this non-issue than other numerous unconstitutional laws that have been enacted and forced down our throats since 9/11.
edit on 3/7/2012 by this_is_who_we_are because: a big mess



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


I am aware that is the point of the thread.

That pink underwear being worn by those incarcerated (convicted or not) has anything to do with a tough stance on crime is additional point i was raising.

'Course, that the courts would like to tackle the easy issues (who's brownie is smaller than the others) rather than the important issues is certainly troubling.

Kangaroo Court.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join